]]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 4:31 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: RE: cfoutput - was RE: cfset vs using cfscript
CF7 is great, finally incorporating the full range of object oriented
methodologies within ColdFusion.
CF 2010 is not my cup of tea, though. They decided to bypass the
Internet all
At 05:15 PM 4/15/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Ah, but the real question that will end the debate.
>
>Will it make a difference in NEO?
>
>I don't think it will if after your code is compiled.
Someone mentioned that to me in the past. I believe we were talking
about custom tags vs includes.
CF7 is great, finally incorporating the full range of object oriented
methodologies within ColdFusion.
CF 2010 is not my cup of tea, though. They decided to bypass the
Internet all together since it is now owned and controlled entirely by
Microsoft, which means, thankfully we still have co
Ah, but the real question that will end the debate.
Will it make a difference in NEO?
I don't think it will if after your code is compiled.
This leaves us with, will it compile faster?
Most likely, but everything is compiled on the first hit, who cares, right?
To me, this boils it down to
OK, tell us everything you know about CF 7 and CF 2010 ;)
> So, we've got two different ways of doing something; one of these
> ways used
> to be faster than the other, but now their positions have been
> reversed,according to this. Who's to say which will be faster
> under CF MX, or CF 7,
> o
> > Again, in my experience, I've never seen any significant
> > difference in these small things, compared to the differences
> > in performance that can come from reexamining the application
> > architecture to remove work done unnecessarily at runtime ...
>
> It also depends on the type of
> I believe he meant that the minor performance tweaks being discussed
here
> may not hold true in new (or previous) versions.
Ah, ok. Then it makes perfect sense. It's late. It's Monday. I'm closing
the thread in my mind and going home.
-Justin Scott, Lead Developer
Sceiron Internet Serv
At 05:29 PM 4/15/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > tweaks of this nature don't make a significant difference, and you can't
> > rely on their behavior in future versions (or previous versions for that
> > matter).
>
>Eh? I wasn't aware there was a chance Macromedia was going to rip cfscript
>out of Cold
And you are bragging about that?
At 05:05 PM 4/15/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>personally, I never use comments and all my code is one long line for
>execution speed.
>
>On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Dave Watts wrote:
>
> > > A fraction of a second on a major application that gets
> > > millions of hits a da
> > And yes, what Dave Watts said is certainly true and
> > important, but that does not mean that watching things
> > like this is somehow NOT important.
>
> Well, actually, it does mean that, to some degree. (At least, that's my
> argument - you're free to accept or reject it.) Again, in my expe
personally, I never use comments and all my code is one long line for
execution speed.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Dave Watts wrote:
> > A fraction of a second on a major application that gets
> > millions of hits a day can make or break a system. Remember
> > that when you do the big jobs .
>
> Whi
> And yes, what Dave Watts said is certainly true and
> important, but that does not mean that watching things
> like this is somehow NOT important.
Well, actually, it does mean that, to some degree. (At least, that's my
argument - you're free to accept or reject it.) Again, in my experience,
I
> I have to take issue with your last paragraph. I don't know what's going
on
> in the examples in the book because I don't own it. However, as has been
> discussed here way too many times (check the archives), CFLOOP QUERY=""
has
> been tuned starting with CF 4.01 to be faster than CFOUTPUT QUERY
> > My testing agrees with this. This flies in the face of what Chris
>Cortes
> > says in his book "Optimizing ColdFusion 5." Page 404. Or am I reading
>it
> > wrong? Does anyone else have any beefs with this book?
>
>The book is referring to it being more efficient to wrap tags
>around ind
> A fraction of a second on a major application that gets
> millions of hits a day can make or break a system. Remember
> that when you do the big jobs .
While it's a good idea to code for efficiency wherever possible, the above
statement just isn't that accurate. Almost every system I've seen
> My testing agrees with this. This flies in the face of what Chris Cortes
> says in his book "Optimizing ColdFusion 5." Page 404. Or am I reading it
> wrong? Does anyone else have any beefs with this book?
The book is referring to it being more efficient to wrap tags
around individual varia
At 11:46 AM 4/15/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>My testing agrees with this. This flies in the face of what Chris Cortes
>says in his book "Optimizing ColdFusion 5." Page 404. Or am I reading it
>wrong? Does anyone else have any beefs with this book?
That was the only thing I read in the book that
-
From: Venn, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 11:20 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: cfoutput - was RE: cfset vs using cfscript
RecordSet contained 1000 results...
Using Cfoutput to loop through query: 50 ms
Using Cfloop contained with cfoutput tags: 50 ms
Using C
: Monday, April 15, 2002 11:01 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: cfoutput - was RE: cfset vs using cfscript
Shawn McKee wrote:
> While on this topic, how about efficiency with cfoutput?
>
> It makes sense to me that this:
>
>
>
>value="#val#">#valDes
At 10:55 AM 4/15/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>While on this topic, how about efficiency with cfoutput?
>
>It makes sense to me that this:
>
>
>
> value="#val#">#valDesc#
>
>
>
>is faster than this:
>
>
>
>
> #valDesc#
>
owitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: cfset vs using cfscript
> a fraction of a second. How big a fraction is debatable.
>
> At 11:41 AM 4/15/02, you wrote:
> >I have a question...
>
I have read that cfscript is faster when you have a large block.
I assume you do not have access to CF right now otherwise you would have
tested this yourself. Anyway, when I tested it I got the same execution
time back.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Clint Tredway wrote:
> I have a question...
>
> Let
it will be faster...how much? well, that would depend on your system. You
could always set up some tests...
-Original Message-
From: Clint Tredway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 11:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: cfset vs using cfscript
I have a question...
Lets s
I just optimized some templates which were written in
cf tag syntax by rewriting as cfscript. In my
experience, cfscript can be up to 2-3x as fast. But in
my opinion, the performance isn't worth rewriting
unless you're inside a loop. In my case, I rewrote all
the cfset statements inside a cfquery
Shawn McKee wrote:
> While on this topic, how about efficiency with cfoutput?
>
> It makes sense to me that this:
>
>
>
>value="#val#">#valDesc#
>
>
>
> is faster than this:
>
>
>
>
> #valDesc#
>
>
While on this topic, how about efficiency with cfoutput?
It makes sense to me that this:
#valDesc#
is faster than this:
#valDesc#
But what about these?
a fraction of a second. How big a fraction is debatable.
At 11:41 AM 4/15/02, you wrote:
>I have a question...
>
>Lets say that I have about 10 variables being set locally on 20 or so cfm
>pages..
>
>How much faster is using cfscript over using cfset to set the values of
>these local variables?
General rule of thumb is to set variables using cfscript if there are three
or more in a row. I do not have exact statistics to back this up, but I
have found cfscript code to execute significantly faster than regular CFML.
It is also easier to read and follow, IMHO.
-Justin Scott, Lead Develope
oi Clint!!
well you could always do some tests, but i've heard rule o thumb is more than 3
is more efficient..
--
Critz
Certified Adv. ColdFusion Developer
Crit[s2k] -
Monday, April 15, 2002, 11:41:57 AM, you wrote:
CT> I have a question...
CT
29 matches
Mail list logo
